Question - Page 4

Originally posted by: sherlock

Originally posted by: Akash005

I think I left out a proper reply to the above mentioned point in my earlier post..

'Deprived of palatial comforts'?.. yes they were deprived!.. but do u think that's what matters the most ?.. of course not !.. bcoz as u pointed out already they would have had 2 stay away from such comforts in either case..but that's not the point.. but if a child is deprived of his identity then yes it matters a LOT..growing up without never having anything to do with their father is a very painful experience for a child n no amount of 'palatial comforts' can make up for such a loss!..some may argue that luv kush were too young to even understand y they were living with their mother n y their father was absent..but kids even at that age could b so intuitive..they might not b aware of the entire story but I always had a feeling that the twins felt the injustice done 2 their mother n related it to the absence of their father.. hence they were very aggressive n protective of their mother at such a tender age..

Originally posted by: Akash005

Thank you so very much for such deep n meaningful insights on lord Rama's actions..I suppose this is as good as it gets..

OK now again, feel free to correct me if m wrong; so in a nut shell the reason for lord Rama's actions r two fold -

1. To protect the sanctity of his throne n carry out a king's responsibility.

2. To ensure that Sita herself doesn't have to face such malicious gossips in her pregnant condition , thereby, sending her away 'safely' n not 'abandoning' her per se.

A king's responsibility is frequently used in lord Rama's defence but the second reason is fairly a new perspective for me, n it totally makes sense BTW..however, doesn't it bother any one that Lord Rama can undertake an epic battle to rescue Sita from ravana n yet he fails to fight off the gossip mongers in his own praja,thereby succumbing to such pressures n 'sending his wife away' for her as well as the unborn twins welfare..u c , evil can b personified in many ways..an evil entity does not necessarily mean a full blown anti hero like ravana , an evil entity can show its ugly face in many ways, b it manthara, or greed in oneself, or selfishness, jealousy, insecurity, ..etc or even gossiping praja..an evil is just that-evil..n I belive that a gossiping praja is no less of a evil than the main villain ravana..lord rama certainly faught n conquered ravana but he failed miserably at conquering the evil gossipers.. it pains me to admit that Lord Rama accepted his defeat in this battle even b4 the battle began n gave in so easily..n if this 'defeat' is sugar coated as 'kings dharma' then whoever wrote such dharma guidelines needs to b brought into in his senses..I agree that fighting gossip is much more harder n painful than fighting ravana but is accepting a quick defeat solution?!..sending sita away for the welfare of sita n kids n accepting to do his king's dharma ( although such a dharma needs a serious analysis !!.. m not even sure y its called a 'dharma' m not even going to bother reading such a dharma where a king has to give in to his evil praja instead of fighting n teaching them ..n its not just about sita anymore, such a praja won't hesitate to crucify other innocent people as well , due to their evil tendencies, all the more reason for a king to b worried abt his praja n show them the right way instead of sitting idol n giving in to their pressures..its equivalent to father ignoring his child's mistakes.. IMO that's adharma ), made a weak mortal man out of Rama ..very sad for someone who just won an epic battle..now take corruption for example.. is it easy to fight off corruption in a country like India?.. absolutely NO!.. its just like gossip fighting..there is no one way defined to fight it off..but does that mean that we should just give in n accept defeat?.. no !.. we need to keep fighting without bothering about results..karma without the thought phala..c now, that's dharma..infact by sending sita away, rama dint just do injustice to sita but also to his gossiping praja since as a king he didn't even bother to show his praja the right way to lead their lives by not participating in such gossips..the way I c  it now, lord Rama's failure was 3 fold, he failed as a king, as a husband and as a father..wow, n now I think m about to cry!.. m very very upset!.. never in my waking memory have I ever even dreamed of thinking such things!

@ BOLD AND RED...the post ended on a strong note..but that's what makes it GUT WRENCHINGLY PAINFUL!!.. lord Rama was aware n 100% sure of Sita's chastity/purity/devotion , which gave him all the more reason to stand up n fight for what's right n yet he accepted his defeat without even attempting to fight !!.. sad , sad and very sad!!!!!!

Originally posted by: varaali

Are you implying that L-K did not know who their father was? 

Valmiki Ramayan specifically states that during the kids naming ceremony, their father's name and lineage was mentioned and Shatrughna was delighted to know that these were Rama's kids. Obviously other ashram inmates would have also heard this.

Now tell me, would L-K alone have been unaware of their identity- when all others around them knew?

Originally posted by: Akash005

yes, the sentence in bold n red if took literally would mean that l-k dint know who their father was..but connect it with the rest of the post n u ll know what i meant.. loss of identity here= absence of father n never meeting or knowing their father..again "knowing" here does not mean "not knowing the name of the father" , it just means "not knowing the father"

Originally posted by: varaali

Akash - you also asked "why couldn't Rama keep Sita with him, no matter whatever be the people's gossip?"

If Rama had done so, what good it would have done to both of them or their children? Doubts then would be cast on the children's parentage making their ascension to throne difficult. 

As a king, Rama had to be seen taking some strong action. 

But we humans, on the lowest level of human consciousness, think this was some great anyaya towards Sita. TV serials ave milked this scene to the maximum. 

To the world it seemed that Rama had broken all ties with his wife. The praja was stunned- and some were even ashamed. 

But the reality is- according to me- the Divine couple was never separated. Valmiki describes Sita as the praana in a body. To be called a living entity, praana has to be present in a body. Rama- Sita were a living entity. 

They had reached such high levels of conciousness, they had blended into each other so well that physical separation did not matter to them at all. 

Originally posted by: varaali

You must be having an ishta-dev. Tell me, have you ever felt his/ her absence from your life? 

Originally posted by: Akash005

yes i do have an ishta-dev..i m an adi shakthi bhakt..i lean more towards shakthism.. n the reason is {people may not like me for saying this} i always felt that the injustice aspect is least in this sect of hinduism.. ni ll b bashed with examples n quotes for saying this..but ever since i was a kid i have been fascinated by how people pray n bow before a goddess whereas in general society women r considered to b weaker sex..it gave me a sense of savage satisfaction that a goddess can demand such a respect..i know people wil say that in vaishnavism n shaivism also goddesses (weaker sex) r respected but its just my personal feeling that they r not respected the same way they r in shakthism.. even in films n movies, m not a huge fan of  hollywood horror films but i do watch (more or less by covering eyes during gory scenes) revenge horror films (n hindi films or films ) wherein the weaker one or the victim gets a savage revenge on the the dominant villian.. i know this is actually a theme of all our epics but i still feel like in the male deity sects of hinduism female deity often have to make a lot of unfair compromises..

absence from my life?..hmm.. i never felt like that..y do u ask?